Share this story

It’s a brisk December morning at Spaceport Tucson, America’s premiere (only?) dedicated launch pad for stratospheric balloons, and a small army of technicians in reflective vests is milling around on the concrete and thawing out after a long, cold night. Nearby, a white metal tripod the size of a smart car is tethered to two dozen solar panels and hundreds of feet of clear plastic that stretches across the pad.

This alien-looking contraption is referred to as a “stratollite,” a portmanteau of “stratospheric satellite,” operated by a company called World View Enterprises. It’s a finely honed surveillance device outfitted with a suite of sensors and a camera sensitive enough to detect people standing on the ground from the edge of space. The stratollite travels by virtue of two balloons, one filled with helium to provide lift, and the other with pressurized air, which functions as a steering system. By the time the contraption reaches peak altitude about 14 miles above sea level, the helium balloon will have grown large enough to comfortably encompass a football field. But in its deflated state, the expanse of plastic brings to mind the sloughed-off skin of the rattlesnakes that call the surrounding Arizona desert home.

Most of the crew has been on site at Spaceport Tucson since 2am preparing for World View’s twelfth and final launch of the year. Things are looking good: The sun and a waning gibbous moon compete for attention in a nearly cloudless sky, and an aerostat tethered close to the pad registers almost no wind. You could hardly ask for better conditions to launch the thousand-pound stratollite on a month-and-a-half sojourn at the edge of space. Mission control gives the green light to start inflation, a process that takes just a few minutes but uses enough helium to fill more than one million party balloons.

Once the stratollite rises to its peak altitude, it rides the wind for weeks on end, tracing spaghetti-like patterns over the American southwest. A condenser in the stratollite sucks in the sparse air in the upper atmosphere and pumps it into the second, “superpressure” balloon attached beneath the helium balloon. The pressurized air is denser than the helium, so the superpressure balloon acts as a weight. To lower the stratollite’s altitude, you increase the pressure, and vice versa to climb higher.

Because the stratollite is at the mercy of the wind, the ability to change altitude at will is critical for navigation. Winds move in different directions and at different speeds depending on the altitude, so stratollite’s minders can steer it by drifting up or down. On any given day, the altitude of the stratollite might change by as much as 25,000 feet depending on the wind patterns.

Founded in 2012 by Taber MacCallum and Jane Poynter of Biosphere 2 fame, World View was originally conceived as a platform for human journeys to the upper stratosphere. Given that only a handful of people have piloted stratospheric balloons and lived to tell the tale, it was an ambitious goal—but the company had the technical chops to back it up. In 2014, MacCallum and Poynter worked together on a mission to send Google executive Alan Eustace on a record-breaking space-diving journey to 136,000 feet suspended beneath a stratospheric balloon.

But it wasn’t at all clear there was enough demand for ferrying humans to the upper stratosphere, so in February, World View tapped Ryan Hartman, the former president and CEO of the drone company Insitu, to retool the company as a data services platform. The idea is to use long-lasting stratospheric balloons to collect high-resolution images of Earth and sell this data to the government and private companies.

Given his background in drones, Hartman is intimately familiar with the concept of Earth surveillance as a service. He says World View aims to fill a niche that can’t be met by more conventional technologies like drones and satellites, which involve compromises in the quality of images, the area these images cover, and the frequency with which images are collected. Stratospheric balloons promise cheap access to incredibly high-resolution images that can be collected anywhere on Earth. Using off-the-shelf imaging hardware, World View can take photos with 15-centimeter resolution from 75,000 feet, and its custom-made cameras will soon be capable of 5 centimeters.

According to Hartman, World View’s system is sensitive enough to tell whether a person on the ground is “holding a shovel or a gun.” Unsurprisingly, perhaps, World View has attracted the interest of the US Department of Defense, which Hartman says will be one of the company’s first customers when it starts selling its data next year. He says the company has also received a lot of attention from the energy sector, which is interested in using the image data to monitor its oil and gas wells, transmission lines, and other critical assets.

Other than having a new company trying to enter this field, there's nothing particularly noteworthy here. Stratospheric reconnaissance has been a thing for over 30 years, for all the reasons mentioned: it's way cheaper than reaching orbit; the resolution is that much better as a result; and there's at least the possibility of persistence over a fairly narrow area over long periods of time.

Other than having a new company trying to enter this field, there's nothing particularly noteworthy here. Stratospheric reconnaissance has been a thing for over 30 years, for all the reasons mentioned: it's way cheaper than reaching orbit; the resolution is that much better as a result; and there's at least the possibility of persistence over a fairly narrow area over long periods of time.

My recollection is a bit fuzzy here, but I vaguely remember that side-view capability can be useful too. Even LEO satellites tend to have a harder time getting very far away from a directly top down view right? They're inherently limited in the max angle they can get on ground targets by their orbit, while resolution in principle can improve based on however big a light gatherer they can create and launch, the height will always remain. From the air a mere 10-20 miles up that's a lot easier. IIRC the SR-71's original operational objective camera system for example had both the right and left cameras scan horizontally -5 to +45 degrees. The technical objective camera was also 0-45°. I remember an SR-71 story about a time the TEOC was set at 0° but left on during a high banking turn and they happened to get a good side-view of destroyer a good 90+ miles away.

Hartman is aware that not everyone will like the idea of a balloon-borne eye in the sky, but he is adamant that World View’s systems will be used responsibly. “This is not going to be a solution that is used for Big Brother-type applications,” he says. “The fastest way for us to become an over-regulated environment is to be irresponsible with the use of the technology.”

He can be as adamant as he likes.

.... and over-regulation only happens, maybe, after the discovery of irresponsible use.

To address the privacy problem, just have one of these balloons circle the DC area, taking pictures of politicians as they travel from congress to lobbyist to adulteress, all in service of the non-powerless.

Soon therafter a law would appear, requiring the company to secure permission from all pols in each picture.

Other than having a new company trying to enter this field, there's nothing particularly noteworthy here. Stratospheric reconnaissance has been a thing for over 30 years, for all the reasons mentioned: it's way cheaper than reaching orbit; the resolution is that much better as a result; and there's at least the possibility of persistence over a fairly narrow area over long periods of time.

My recollection is a bit fuzzy here, but I vaguely remember that side-view capability can be useful too. Even LEO satellites tend to have a harder time getting very far away from a directly top down view right? They're inherently limited in the max angle they can get on ground targets by their orbit, while resolution in principle can improve based on however big a light gatherer they can create and launch, the height will always remain. From the air a mere 10-20 miles up that's a lot easier. IIRC the SR-71's original operational objective camera system for example had both the right and left cameras scan horizontally -5 to +45 degrees. The technical objective camera was also 0-45°. I remember an SR-71 story about a time the TEOC was set at 0° but left on during a high banking turn and they happened to get a good side-view of destroyer a good 90+ miles away.

Makes a lot of sense why the U-2 is still in service then. Satellites and age took the SR-71 out of service. I wonder how long before a drone takes over for the Dragon Lady.

To address the privacy problem, just have one of these balloons circle the DC area, taking pictures of politicians as they travel from congress to lobbyist to adulteress, all in service of the non-powerless.

Soon therafter a law would appear, requiring the company to secure permission from all pols in each picture.

Honestly, I'm not sure what privacy problems exist, at least in legal terms. If you're out under an open sky, the same laws apply that would apply to ground-based photography; you're fair game, with no expectation of privacy.

Not saying such surveillance is desirable, just noting that at present there aren't any laws barring it.

Cool concept.... but yet another niche company that'll have their lunch gobbled up by SpaceX

Resolution from weather balloons is much better than from satellites.

True, but stick a camera on every starlink node and you get global coverage at a moment's notice for dirt cheap. Almost movie level "give me a camera on that guy in that street" stuff.

Not so much. Starlink orbits at around 550 km; this thing, around 25 km. Orbital surveillance can cover larger areas, but getting the same resolution as something an order of magnitude lower is extremely tricky. Not to mention the petabytes of mostly worthless surveillance data that would be falling out of the sky from that altitude, even if lower altitude resolution could be matched. It's hard to imagine the extensive ground network that would be needed for such a purpose.

Cool concept.... but yet another niche company that'll have their lunch gobbled up by SpaceX

Resolution from weather balloons is much better than from satellites.

I wish the article had made some specific comparisons. Say take the company's best resolution sample and compare to a Google Earth image. Obviously there are higher resolution sat photos than Google Earth, but still would interesting.

The samples presented in the article looked lower resolution than many GE images.

Cool concept.... but yet another niche company that'll have their lunch gobbled up by SpaceX

Resolution from weather balloons is much better than from satellites.

I wish the article had made some specific comparisons. Say take the company's best resolution sample and compare to a Google Earth image. Obviously there are higher resolution sat photos than Google Earth, but still would interesting.

The samples presented in the article looked lower resolution than many GE images.

As noted above, distance is the single most important factor when it comes to resolution.

Most high-resolution GE images are aerial photos taken from conventional airplanes and helicopters. Only low-resolution views use satellite imagery, because...it's lower resolution.

Stratospheric imaging allows wider coverage areas at much higher resolution than satellite imagery, at much lower cost. Aircraft resolution can be higher, but areal coverage is much smaller, and you run into problems with vibration degrading the imagery as well as weather issues (there's not a whole lot of weather at 25 km that can interfere with the imaging package or flight in general).

To address the privacy problem, just have one of these balloons circle the DC area, taking pictures of politicians as they travel from congress to lobbyist to adulteress, all in service of the non-powerless.

Soon therafter a law would appear, requiring the company to secure permission from all pols in each picture.

Honestly, I'm not sure what privacy problems exist, at least in legal terms. If you're out under an open sky, the same laws apply that would apply to ground-based photography; you're fair game, with no expectation of privacy.

Not saying such surveillance is desirable, just noting that at present there aren't any laws barring it.

There are lots of places where you can be outdoors, under an open sky, and still have an expectation that no unauthorized photos will be taken and that anyone found taking unauthorized photos will face adverse consequences of some form.

A few examples: Classified military installations. Oil & gas terminals. An Alberta Tar Sands work camp. Naturist resorts. An RCMP raid on a Canadian Indigenous road checkpoint. The back yard of the state governor's home.

If you hide out in the bushes around any of those with a telephoto lens, things won't turn out well for you.

Aerial surveillance has largely escaped careful legal analysis & regulation because the high cost of entry has limited its pervasiveness. With modern cheap drones & balloons, that may be about to change, and the question "what right of privacy do you have against being watched by a 5 cm resolution camera on a balloon 75,000 feet above you, or by a quadcopter with a 4k sensor & 50x zoom from 10ft past your property line?" will become one that legislatures need to consider.

Cool concept.... but yet another niche company that'll have their lunch gobbled up by SpaceX

Resolution from weather balloons is much better than from satellites.

Er, and you know this how?

Just askin'

Ediot: I say that (mostly) in jest. Surly, the order-of-magnitude closer distance significantly improves aperture limiting. But the nature of the platform detracts from the possible size, weight, and (maybe?) spectral capabilities of the camera.

For example, World View is claiming 15cm resolution from 75kft, shooting for 5cm RSN. Meanwhile Digital Globe's WorldView3 satellite collects 20cm from 2.4Mft -- that we know of and DG sells to the public.

Admittedly, the satellite is at least several orders of magnitude more costly, cannot loiter, and might be outnumbered by balloons. (I think.) There are trade-offs.

To address the privacy problem, just have one of these balloons circle the DC area, taking pictures of politicians as they travel from congress to lobbyist to adulteress, all in service of the non-powerless.

Soon therafter a law would appear, requiring the company to secure permission from all pols in each picture.

Honestly, I'm not sure what privacy problems exist, at least in legal terms. If you're out under an open sky, the same laws apply that would apply to ground-based photography; you're fair game, with no expectation of privacy.

Not saying such surveillance is desirable, just noting that at present there aren't any laws barring it.

Is not that simple.

Supreme Court says basically that but there are caveats and its not this anything at all free for all thing like people seem to think. Photographing that in plain view or on public property is legal if the photography is done from public property, or if on private property with permission of the property owner for that in plain view in the bounds of the private property, and it does not violate a reasonable expectation of privacy (without permission), and no laws are violated in doing such photography, and it does not interfere with legitimate law enforcement or government services activities.

The problem becomes places that exist where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. A place like that may not be viewable from the ground (for example a privacy fenced or walled in area) but may be viewable from the air.

I can see the very large views where individuals or specific areas can not be specifically identified as being ok to do. But what about pics where people can be identified and they are within areas in which there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.

So if there is a reasonable expectation of privacy area is photography into that area from the air also covered under the same laws?

Cool concept.... but yet another niche company that'll have their lunch gobbled up by SpaceX

Resolution from weather balloons is much better than from satellites.

True, but stick a camera on every starlink node and you get global coverage at a moment's notice for dirt cheap. Almost movie level "give me a camera on that guy in that street" stuff.

Not so much. Starlink orbits at around 550 km; this thing, around 25 km. Orbital surveillance can cover larger areas, but getting the same resolution as something an order of magnitude lower is extremely tricky. Not to mention the petabytes of mostly worthless surveillance data that would be falling out of the sky from that altitude, even if lower altitude resolution could be matched. It's hard to imagine the extensive ground network that would be needed for such a purpose.

Starlink would be pretty excellent as a comms backbone for these, though. High bandwidth pretty much everywhere and the stratolite’s big enough to carry a pizza-box sized phase array antenna. Seems like a great match of requirement and capability.

Cool concept.... but yet another niche company that'll have their lunch gobbled up by SpaceX

Resolution from weather balloons is much better than from satellites.

Interestingly these balloons don't offer much better resolution than the best military spy satellites. GAMBIT 3 film-based reconnaissance satellites were routinely getting imagery with better than 10cm ground resolutions from the late 1970s onwards and at their very best the images were closer to 6cm on the ground.

Newer KH-11s are more capable in many ways and have instantaneous image return, but it's unlikely that they're delivering higher resolutions than GAMBIT because their larger optics are cancelled out by their much higher orbits.

These new balloons would essentially show what the DoD has at its disposal and how much any declassified spy satellite imagery is degraded before it's released for public viewing.

This isn't America's only stratospheric balloon launch facility - NASA has been doing that from the Columbia Scientific Balloon Facility inTexas for decades (see https://www.csbf.nasa.gov/). They're now working on super-pressure balloons, ones that can stay up at night because they're over-inflated during the day. They've been launching them from New Zealand, where they can orbit Antarctica for months. They're a way cheap way to do astronomy above almost all the atmosphere. Plus you get your instrument back, maybe. Plus you get to visit New Zealand!

Cool concept.... but yet another niche company that'll have their lunch gobbled up by SpaceX

Resolution from weather balloons is much better than from satellites.

Interestingly these balloons don't offer much better resolution than the best military spy satellites. GAMBIT 3 film-based reconnaissance satellites were routinely getting imagery with better than 10cm ground resolutions from the late 1970s onwards and at their very best the images were closer to 6cm on the ground.

Newer KH-11s are more capable in many ways and have instantaneous image return, but it's unlikely that they're delivering higher resolutions than GAMBIT because their larger optics are cancelled out by their much higher orbits.

These new balloons would essentially show what the DoD has at its disposal and how much any declassified spy satellite imagery is degraded before it's released for public viewing.

I think it's safe to assume that optics are now limited more by atmospheric seeing than by anything else; it's probably not a coincidence that atmospheric turbulence cells are on the order of 5 - 10 cm. And at stratospheric heights, you're already looking down through pretty much the same amount of atmosphere as a satellite would be.

Cool concept.... but yet another niche company that'll have their lunch gobbled up by SpaceX

Resolution from weather balloons is much better than from satellites.

I wish the article had made some specific comparisons. Say take the company's best resolution sample and compare to a Google Earth image. Obviously there are higher resolution sat photos than Google Earth, but still would interesting.

The samples presented in the article looked lower resolution than many GE images.

From a Trump tweet about a failed missile test in Iran. We know that the NRO has some pretty good sub 30cm sats. You could see a lot of detail on the debris field.

Cool concept.... but yet another niche company that'll have their lunch gobbled up by SpaceX

Resolution from weather balloons is much better than from satellites.

Interestingly these balloons don't offer much better resolution than the best military spy satellites. GAMBIT 3 film-based reconnaissance satellites were routinely getting imagery with better than 10cm ground resolutions from the late 1970s onwards and at their very best the images were closer to 6cm on the ground.

Newer KH-11s are more capable in many ways and have instantaneous image return, but it's unlikely that they're delivering higher resolutions than GAMBIT because their larger optics are cancelled out by their much higher orbits.

These new balloons would essentially show what the DoD has at its disposal and how much any declassified spy satellite imagery is degraded before it's released for public viewing.

I think it's safe to assume that optics are now limited more by atmospheric seeing than by anything else; it's probably not a coincidence that atmospheric turbulence cells are on the order of 5 - 10 cm. And at stratospheric heights, you're already looking down through pretty much the same amount of atmosphere as a satellite would be.

Something that would be an advantage for the balloons is that it should be easier to use techniques like lucky imaging to cancel out the effects of atmospheric blurring. A satellite could try the same thing, but its speed of movement over the ground would greatly limit how long it could image a target. Even amateur astronomers have been using that technique for quite a few years now to get near diffraction-limited images well below the limits of atmospheric seeing.

Hartman is aware that not everyone will like the idea of a balloon-borne eye in the sky, but he is adamant that World View’s systems will be used responsibly. “This is not going to be a solution that is used for Big Brother-type applications,” he says. “The fastest way for us to become an over-regulated environment is to be irresponsible with the use of the technology.”

He can be as adamant as he likes.

.... and over-regulation only happens, maybe, after the discovery of irresponsible use.

It's that whole 'discovery' thing that matters most. With as secretive, pervasive, and abusive as the surveillance state has become, one should not expect such irresponsible use to go noticed soon enough to prevent it from causing harm.